You'd Think It Would Be A Strawman Argument, But According To Some People Simply Witnessing A Fictional

You'd think it would be a strawman argument, but according to some people simply witnessing a fictional instance of something is enough to blindly convince or convert you to perceiving it as a positive. Often without consequence or regardless of consequence.

If you think the counter-argument sounds ridiculous, that's because the original argument is.

"But this piece of fiction romanticizes [insert bad thing here]!"

Okay. And?

If you aren't self-aware and educated enough to know something is bad regardless of how a tv show or movie or song portrays it, that's a you issue. I've never once watched Hannibal and thought that's a reasonable real life relationship. I've never once watched Game of Thrones and thought hey, maybe fucking your sister isn't such a bad thing.

Romanticizing is simply part of the narrative. If you can't separate the portrayal of something in fiction and how it should be approached in real life, you shouldn't be watching it.

Bit of a reflexive rant, hope you don't mind. I'm starting to believe that anti-shippers just, genuinely, do not understand you can enjoy or have your interest piqued by taboo in fiction, and not endorse it in real life. Does that mean everything they watch, read and listen to is stuff that they morally approve of? In which case, if they happened to enjoy: Breaking Bad, South Park, 50 Shades of Gray, Mindless Self Indulgence, etc. ("problematic" media); wouldn't it indicate, by that line of thought, that they (consumers) are "bad" people?

And if any dare respond to this with: "well, there's nuance to that!"; I will be sorely disappointed, and not at all surprised, with the hypocrisy.

I can also smell the: "but what about (paraphilia)". I do not care. My main point still stands.

The thing that trips most antis up is the involvement of sexual gratification or arousal. Its why they'll always skip things like murder and go straight into pedophilia or sexual/romantic relationships with a serious imbalance.

Its also an aspect where you'll find they are most hypocritical.

Hello there! I wanted to show an article that I found, but i wanted to confirm if you can like...analyze if the article is correct or wrong, so...can you do that? If you don't, it's okay

I can reasonably discuss and fact check an article alongside investigating if there's any author or sponsor bias.

If you're an anti but you watch and enjoy Disney you should legally change your name to Hypocrite McDouble-Standards.

Antis who proudly proclaim they're going to become a therapist so they can shut down and manipulate and unethically target all the 'nasty proshippers' make me laugh because they're going to get two months into any sort of qualifying course and be slapped in the face by the reality that therapists are obligated to remain objective and impartial and will lose their license if they're found to be using their position to be unfairly bias or negatively target clients based on their own personal beliefs and values.

"Objectivity helps counsellors avoid personal biases and allows them to focus on the client's needs without imposing their own beliefs or values." - American Counselling Association

"Therapy should feel like an inclusive and safe place for clients. Clients need to feel safe and supported in their work. And while all therapists have inherent biases and personal preferences, it is never appropriate for them to engage in discrimination, racism, sexism, or other forms of prejudice with clients." - Medcircle

You do not get into therapy to correct people. You get into therapy to help them. Therapy is not about the therapist.

"I dont support it in real life!"

Then why write about it? If for coping purposes, why post it online for others (especially actual predators) to see and consume? Then why portray those things in a positive light instead of condemning them?And you're seriously going to tell me that just because as an adult you want to see a fictional minor (that mind you, is usually designed to resemble an actual child) depicted in sexual situations doesn't mean you don't share that same view concerning children in real life? You find fictional minors attractive but not real ones? Why does the line between finding someone who is (and usually also looks like) a child sexually attractive get drawn at whether the child is real or not? I'm not calling anyone pedophiles, but if the shoe fits... And also no, I am not talking about 18 y/os finding 17 y/os attractive. Use your brain. Creating content of underaged characters is still questionable regardless of age, however.

"I'm not calling anyone pedophiles..."

Proceeds to send in a ridiculous essay calling people pedophiles for the kind of fictional content they consume, for whatever purpose.

I swear, you'll all scratched CDs. If you genuinely cannot comprehend why there is a line between fiction and reality, frankly, you should not be trying to provoke or dictate discussions on that line.

You said 'use your brain.' In a pretty assumptive argument, by the way, but I'm going to uno reverse that advice. There are already plenty of resources available both on my blog and elsewhere if you'd actually like to educate yourself and not just try to use me like a sounding board for your superiority complex.